File Title space weaponization good 2
Download 1.17 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- A2 North Korea Threat
- SMIL Bad – Laundry List
- SMIL Bad – Accidental Launch 1NC
A2 Iran ThreatIran is not a space threatWeston 9 – Major Scott A. Weston, US Air Force, Troy University; MA, Naval Postgraduate School, 2009, "Examining Space Warfare: Scenarios, Risks, and US Policy Implications," Air & Space Power Journal. XXIII, No. 1, 73-82, www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/spr09/weston.html Finally, any scenario involving conflict with Iran includes the possibility that that country would use its ballistic missiles to attack US space assets. Because attacking a specific satellite would involve tracking and targeting resources that Iran does not possess, such an attempt would amount to a blind strike against the orbital environment. By scattering debris at altitudes used by the United States’ ISR satellites, Iran could hope to degrade or disable as many such satellites as possible. Although this threat is real, many reasons argue against carrying it out. First, debris clouds are indiscriminate and would potentially damage satellites from every nation that uses those specific altitudes. The guaranteed international condemnation would only serve to strengthen the US political position globally with respect to the conflict. Second, the United States’ ability to model and track debris clouds to a certain extent would enable it to mitigate some postattack risk from debris. Finally, the use of Iranian ballistic missiles in this manner would make them unavailable for attacks against US forces on the ground. A2 North Korea ThreatNorth Korea is not a space threatWeston 9 – Major Scott A. Weston, US Air Force, Troy University; MA, Naval Postgraduate School, 2009, "Examining Space Warfare: Scenarios, Risks, and US Policy Implications," Air & Space Power Journal. XXIII, No. 1, 73-82, www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/spr09/weston.html Despite the great damage, no lives have been lost, so nuclear retaliation against North Korea resulting in heavy civilian casualties would be inappropriate. Although military confrontation with North Korea would similarly put many lives at risk, it remains the most likely international response to ensure regime change and prevent additional nuclear explosions. In this case, there is little place for counterspace operations because North Korea has no space assets for the United States to attack. The United States would deem any remaining missiles and launch facilities high-priority targets in its first retaliatory strikes. Destruction of launch and satellite communication centers would obviate the need for further offensive space operations. One could possibly consider this case an attack justifying the “Pearl Harbor” label, but all spacefaring nations—not only the United States—would become victims. Rather than derive strategic benefit from the attack, the North Korean regime would only guarantee its demise. SMIL Bad – Laundry ListWeaponization hurts arms control agreements, space assets, and the environmentMaogoto & Freeland 8 – Jackson Nyamuya Maogoto, Senior Lecturer in International Law, University of Newcastle, **AND Steven Freeland, Associate Professor in International Law, University of Western Sydney (Australia); Visiting Professor of International Law, University of Copenhagen, (Denmark); Member of the Space Law Committee of the International Law Association; Member of the International Institute of Space Law. "From Star Wars to Space Wars - the next strategic frontier: paradigms to anchor space security," January 1st, 2008, Journal of Air and Space Law, Volume 33, pp. 35 Because of its uniquely commanding height, outer space has gained even greater military and strategic value in the post-cold-war international strategic environment. This provides for the possibility that outer space will become a platform for warfare. This development will only result in negative consequences. It will disrupt global strategic balances and stability, undermine international and national security and harm existing arms control arrangements, in particular those related to nuclear weapons and missiles. All of these will inexorably trigger a new arms race — the symptoms of which we are already witnessing. In addition, the deployment and use of space weapons will seriously threaten the security of space assets and risks causing irreversible harm to the biosphere of the earth. A common sense approach will not unduly jeopardize the economic and strategic interests of those States utilizing space technology, but will make it clear that there are strict binding limits as to how far and for what purposes this technology can be implemented. SMIL Bad – Accidental Launch 1NCSpace weaponization causes US-Russian accidental warGraham 5 – Thomas Graham, Jr., former special representative of the president for arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament, December 2005, “Space Weapons and the Risk of Accidental Nuclear War,” Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_12/DEC-SpaceWeapons The United States and Russia maintain thousands of nuclear warheads on long-range ballistic missiles on 15-minute alert. Once launched, they cannot be recalled, and they will strike their targets in roughly 30 minutes. Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, the chance of an accidental nuclear exchange has far from decreased. Yet, the United States may be contemplating further exacerbating this threat by deploying missile interceptors in space. Both the United States and Russia rely on space-based systems to provide early warning of a nuclear attack. If deployed, however, U.S. space-based missile defense interceptors could eliminate the Russian early warning satellites quickly and without warning. So, just the existence of U.S. space weapons could make Russia’s strategic trigger fingers itchy. The potential protection space-based defenses might offer the United States is swamped therefore by their potential cost: a failure of or false signal from a component of the Russian early warning system could lead to a disastrous reaction and accidental nuclear war. There is no conceivable missile defense, space-based or not, that would offer protection in the event that the Russian nuclear arsenal was launched at the United States. Nor are the Russians or other countries likely to stand still and watch the United States construct space-based defenses. These states are likely to respond by developing advanced anti-satellite weapon systems.[1] These weapons, in turn, would endanger U.S. early warning systems, impair valuable U.S. weapons intelligence efforts, and increase the jitteriness of U.S. officials. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.17 Mb. Share with your friends:
|